2018 Supreme(SC) 987

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9051-9052 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4275-4276 of 2017)
Decided On : 12-10-2018

MAIN POINTS
When a Bench disagrees with views of a coordinate Bench, the only course open to the Judge is to refer the matter to larger Bench.
When a party does not raise any objection regarding competence of the trial court and takes a chance to obtain judgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowed to turn-round and contend before revisional court that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the judgment is without jurisdiction and nullity.

Headnote:(a) Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 – Section 15 r/w Section 25, Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 and section 15, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of Additional District Judge raised from 25000 to 100000 – Instant suit valued at 27,775 pending and proceeded before Additional District Judge – None of the parties raising any objection – Additional District Judge decreeing the suit – Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 designating District Judge/Additional District Judge as Small Causes Court and invested them with unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction – On the other hand pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes court presided by Civil judge was limited to Rs.1 lakh by the same amendment – Section 15, CPC requiring suit to be filed in the court of lowest grade competent to try it – On a conjoint reading held, small causes cases up to Rs. 1 lakh valuation would be filed before and taken cognizance of by small cause court presided by Civil judge and those with valuation of more than Rs.1 lakh would fall within jurisdiction of the small cause case presided by District judge/Additional District judge. (Para 20, 35)

       (2018) 1 ALJ 17 – Overruled

       (b) Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 – Section 15 – “Cognizance” – Means "jurisdiction" or "the exercise of jurisdiction" or "power to try and determine causes" – `Cognizable' a word of wide import, takes into its fold institution, hearing and decision of a case cognizable by the court –

       When the plain word in the statute i.e. Section 15(2) uses the word "cognizable" the "statements of objects and reasons" using the word "institution" cannot control the express labguage of section 15(2) – Interpretation of statute – Small Cause suit not exceeding value of Rs. 1 lac cognizable by Court of Small Causes – Hence, no other court can take cognizance of such suit – Additional District Judge, held, not competent to take cognizance of instant suit after U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act), 2015 w.e.f.07.12.2015, because the suit in question became cognizable by Small Causes Court i.e. Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. (Para 41, 42, 47)

       (2004) 2 SCC 349; (1997) 8 SCC 522; (2003) 1 SCC 506; (2003) 1 SCC 692 – Relied upon

       SCC Revision No. 278 of 2016 – Partly approved

       AIR 1975 Allahabad 425 – Referred

       © Administration of justice – judicial discipline – Single judge of High Court noticing judgment of a coordinate Bench – Disagreeing with it – Giving conflicting view – Not permissible – The only course open to the Judge was to refer the matter to larger Bench. (Para 48)

       (d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 21 – Respondent not raising any objection regarding competence of the court and took a chance to obtain judgments in his favour on merits – Cannot be allowed to turn-round and contend that the court of Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to try the Small Cause Suit and the judgment is without jurisdiction and nullity – Revisional court ought not allow objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court. (Para 58, 62)

       AIR 1954 SC 340; (1993) 2 SCC 130; (2005) 7 SCC 791; (2007) 13 SCC 650 – Relied upon

       AIR 1962 SC 199; AIR 1966 SC 634 – Referred

       2017 (121) ALR 392 – Overruled

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant, the landlord of premises in question filed Judge Small Causes Suit praying for decree of eviction, rent and damages. The suit was transferred to the Court of District Judge. The pecuniary jurisdiction of a Judge, Small Cause Court, which at the time of filing of the suit was Rs. 25,000/- was raised from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1 lakh w.e.f. 07.12.2005. The Additional District Judge to whom the suit was transferred earlier on the ground that pecuniary jurisdiction of the suit is more than Rs. 25,000/- i.e. Rs. 27,775/-, proceeded to decide the suit vide its judgment and order dated 22.10.2016 and the suit for eviction, rent and compensation was decreed.

       Revision was filed by the tenant (respondents to this appeal). One of the grounds taken in the revision was that after enactment of Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, the Court of Additional District Judge ceased to have any jurisdiction to try the suit between lessor and lessee of a value upto Rs. 1 lakh. The assumption subsequent thereto of the jurisdiction by the Additional District Judge is without jurisdiction.

       The High Court allowed the Small Cause Court revision taking a view that order passed by Additional District Judge was without jurisdiction. The High Court remanded back the Revision for a fresh decision by Small Causes Court presided over by a Civil Judge (Senior Division).

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court ought not interfere with judgment of the Additional District Judge even though he did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction.

       Result: Appeals allowed.